Band dilema.
 

I've stumbled upon one recently in my and, i have singer, 25, never gigged but you can tell is desperate to do so...who seems to take a very strict approach to the band...a practiced and polished set of songs within a serious genre, not scaping out too far, a steady setlist.
I have a guitarist 17, who is the complete opposite end of the pole, who want's to be far more spontanious, clump together a bunch of songs from clashing genre's, rip off a few comedy songs and generally have a laugh with it.

Which one would you agree with if in a band situation as such and why? what aproach needs to be taken to make a good band in your oh so wise opinions. :)

I think it depends on y'alls goal as a band overall.

If you want to make a career and establish yourself, the 25 year old's route is a much more feasible option.

If you want to have some fun, maybe eventually become a band, your route is the more feasible option.

It's not ym route, it's my guitarists but yes good point, but what would your route be is what i'm asking.

Something in between.

Maybe take it a bit more seriously, but still do the some of funny improv stuff, but not as much as before

develop a set list in which 3/4 of the songs are steady, but leave the other 1/4 up to spontaneity, so that you can play to the crowd more and be creative.

Basically experimentation is great, provides and outlet for creativity and gives you the opportunity to make some really awesome and groundbreaking music (as well as total crap). But don't get carried away with it, if there is no structure at all nothing of great substance will get done.

Aye i see your point, but it could still be seen as darelessness i mean, someone in a turbonegro, monster magnet, therapy? g'n'r kinda band wanting to throw in sweet home alabama and then some iced earth...doesnt really work.

It could work. From my personal experience the best concerts are the kind that don't feel confined to genre.

its not just genre confined, theres no consideration as to wether or not the band would pull it off well, just kinda 'oh i like this song, lets do it'

Does your music really consist of such polar opposites?

I mean look at Red Krayola. Every new cd they try to change what type of music they play. They're all about transcending from one genre to another, never wasting time repeating a genre that was successful.

It's not just transcending by album, he wants to be more along the lines of a **** about band than anything, for a start before me and the singer joined they were covering ratm...badly, nobody should do rage bar rage...and poor tenacious d covers, the only time that can be considered funny is when tenacious d are playing it. And labeling yourself a band that incorperate monster magnet, turbo negro and then covering iced earth, lynyrd skynyrd inbetween...i dunno, i just don't see it working very well, i'd consider any band i saw do something like that a joke band, or completely clueless.

that would not work well.

I'm not a huge fan of cover bands, because I believe that the best version is usually the original version. I agree, I couldn't see covering all those different artists working well at all.

Do y'all have original pieces?